“The report reveals that in 1998, more than two-thirds of people who drank too much on a given day were teenagers”

Poorly worded, poor methodology or do I just not get it? And:

“more than two-thirds of teenagers had drunk alcohol in the previous 12 months”

That seems very low to me.

If the body of the article actually shows what the first sentence says it does, then great, but forgive me if on the basis of the two findings given I doubt that for now.

“Can you show me figures indicating that 1/3 of 14-19 year olds drank at dangerously abusive levels monthly or more frequently in the 1980s or earlier? Ill wager the answer is no.”

Remind me never to go to the track with you Ken. Some wager, when you yourself have already ascertained the figures don’t go back that far. But of course, that supports YOUR conclusion, not mine, right?

Wait… except I actually WAS a teenager in the 1980s and early 90s (as I’ve already said, mister gets-uppity-when-he-thinks-others-haven’t-read-him-thoroughly).

“You also assume without evidence that the rates of abusive drinking are no higher than they were when you were a kid (whenever that was).”

I’m not assuming anything. I’m doing two things:

1) Calling bullshit on the assumption-apparently-without-evidence that they ARE higher, which has been uncritically accepted by a lot of people who should know better.

2) Pointing out that even if there has been an increase, it’s not reasonable to assume that RTD prices will have any effect, merely because that’s what some young bingers currently purchase(d).

3) Pointing out bizarre and anachronistic aspects of the current and new taxation regime for alcohol, which ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT “restore a system whereby all alcohol products are taxed on the same basis”. Wine is taxed ad valorem, regardless of alcohol content. Beer at a lower rate than RTDs per unit of alcohol (now MUCH lower). Spirits – well, if it’s brandy there’s an old loophole for winegrowers who overproduce, but otherwise it’s a combination of ad valorem and by alcohol content.

the government actually budgeted for a higher excise intake from this area so by default they think the tax wont do a thing

The tax windfall and a reduction in the consumption of the taxed product are not mutually exclusive outcomes. Even if the number of consumers stayed static it means a tax windfall and a net reduction in purchases, since you would otherwise expect it to grow with the growth in population. Just saying.

You have conveniently ignored the paper I first mentioned which does assert a significant increase in teenage binge drinking. You also assume without evidence that the rates of abusive drinking are no higher than they were when you were a kid (whenever that was). Unless you turned 18 in the mid to late 1990s there is no basis for that assumption in the research. The figures I’ve referred to seem most consistent with a significant increase in teenage binge drinking in the early to mid 90s to worrying levels (and yes I do think you’re not a reasonable person if you’re not concerned about that). Can you show me figures indicating that 1/3 of 14-19 year olds drank at dangerously abusive levels monthly or more frequently in the 1980s or earlier? I’ll wager the answer is no.

As for your final sentence “Should I support the selective taxing of products thought to have caused this non-increase?”, that simply reveals your lack of concern with the facts. The Rudd government’s recent excise increase is in fact the precise opposite of “selective taxing”. Selective taxing is what the Howard government previously did with RTD beverages. The Rudd initiative restores a system whereby all alcohol products are taxed on the same basis. The fact that you are happy to obfuscate or distort that fact doesn’t really suggest there’s much point in wasting time continuing the discussion, because it’s a fundamentally dishonest argument (unless I’m misunderstanding you in which case I’m sure you’ll be able to explain what you really meant to say).

Either you are wrong about that, or I am not a reasonable person.

“I can only assume that those on this comment thread who implicitly dismiss the seriousness of the problem are not parents of teenagers”

Guilty, m’lud.

“They show no statistically significant increase in either total drinking or binge drinking, but they DO show binge drinking at levels that any sensible person IMO would find worrying.”

So I’m not even sensible now? Sheesh. No increase, so why worry? Sure, I will, when I do have a teenaged kid, worry that they are doing the exact same dangerous and foolish things that I did. And naturally, I’ll worry that perhaps they’re doing even worse. Will I (or should I now) therefore worry about “young people” or “society”? Should I support the selective taxing of products thought to have “caused” this non-increase?

We should add the Hanson’s list “Anything said by an employee of an organisation you dislike, even in a private discussion, must be wrong”.

I can only assume that those on this comment thread who implicitly dismiss the seriousness of the problem are not parents of teenages

KenP in a huge number of cases it is the bloody parents actually buying the grog for the kids.

According to reports the government actually budgeted for a higher excise intake from this area so by default they think the tax won’t do a thing and looks more like a good old fashioned tax grab cloaked as concern for the welfare of kids.

If they were really concerned about kid drinking the states could pass much harsher laws against actions that support teen drinking such as charging parents who buy kids the booze…… Unlikely

You may be right that I’ve been excessively harsh on Berg as an individual in this instance. However I still think it’s entirely justified to treat the IPA and all who sail in her with the deepest suspicion. Like the Australia Institute on the opposite ideological extreme, they indulge in blatant advocacy “research” with little or no effort at real academic rigour or detachment. However, at least the Australia Insitute discloses its donors/sponsors.

FDB

This article from 2002 (subscription only) apparently finds:

Teenage binge drinking is increasing significantly, according to a new alcohol guidelines report from the National Health and Medical Research Council. The report reveals that in 1998, more than two-thirds of people who drank too much on a given day were teenagers, and that more than two-thirds of teenagers had drunk alcohol in the previous 12 months.

As far as I can see, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey collected statistics on alcohol use for 12-15 year olds for the first time in 2004, and their 2007 survey is not yet available on their website. The figures show that 3.3% of children in this age group drink alcohol weekly, while 29.1% drink, but less than weekly. There don’t seem to be any figures concerning abusive (binge) drinking for this age group. Thus it isn’t possible to say conclusively whether binge drinking in this age group is rising, nor at what level it is.

For the older age group (age 14-19), figures are available going back some years. They show no statistically significant increase in either total drinking or binge drinking, but they DO show binge drinking at levels that any sensible person IMO would find worrying. Again drawing on the 2004 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, 10.7% of this age group drank at DANGEROUS levels weekly and another 16.9% did so at least monthly.

I’m in no sense a wowser, and obviously a significant number of young people always have and always will behave fooolishly with alcohol and other drugs from time to time, but these figures would surely be alarming to any reasonable person. I can only assume that those on this comment thread who implicitly dismiss the seriousness of the problem are not parents of teenagers (I have a 19 year old daughter and a 13 year old step-daughter, both of whom are enthusiastically social, hence the focus on this issue).

Ive already confessed to a major bias against the IPA, but as I also said I think its a well justified bias on all the evidence.

A, c’mon Ken, the IPA isn’t all bad. Consider this:

Hipster d00dz in luv beads.

I mean, where else can you get those kind of pictures without undue attention from the feds? They’re performing a valuable public service.

“Does anyone have actual EVIDENCE (like, data) that young teen or pre-teen drinking has increased? Extra points if some effort is made to eliminate the effects of increased media attention or improved honesty in reportage.”

Actually, has anyone even heard about anyone claiming to have such EVIDENCE?

Serious question.

In any event Chris wrote it up on his private blog which, apart from a few die-hards and your link, is hardly huge publicity for any potential donors or likely to influence government etc. Chris is making a general argument about public policy using the alcopop issue as an example – he even suggests how those opposed to alcopops (i.e. in favour of the increased excise) could improve their argument!

Also, Tim Tams and tea? Ew.

Your accusation would be a fair cop if I was only relying on Berg’s immediate argument. In fact I’m relying on both his and the IPA’s track record as well. The fact that I don’t make the unjustified assumption you suggest purely on the presentation of an argument with which I disagree is demonstrated by the fact that I certainly don’t suggest that either Jason Wilson or FDB are guilty of bad faith. I’ve already confessed to a major bias against the IPA, but as I also said I think it’s a well justified bias on all the evidence.

or given in bad faith (and I strongly suspect that Berg belongs in the second group).

If you dislike a proposed solution to a certain problem, you dont care about that problem.

Just wondering…

The thicker chocolate coating on the Double Coat Tim Tam offers a more stable structure to help ensure that the biscuit does not collapse prematurely – refrigerating them also helps to preseve the outside structure while allowing the inside of the biscuit (cookie) to melt. The Chewy Caramel variety also has an advantage for performing the Tim Tam Slam since the caramel centre helps to hold the biscuit together for a slightly longer time. The Arnott’s company prefers the name Tim Tam Suck and ran an advertising campaign promoting it under this name.

Not only do I now have an unfair advantage if ever again challenged to perform the Tim Tam Slam (make sure it’s a Double Coat or a Chewy Caramel), but I have major new evidence for my theory that advertising ‘creatives’ are the biggest idiots on the planet.

Maybe the government could pass a law banning the sale of alcohol to teenagers. That would probably work.

We have a comprehensive culture of teen drinking. I know we did it 20 years ago, I suspect it wnt on 40 years ago, and it may very well be considerably older then that. I fiemly expect these tax hikes to cause no reduction in teen drinking at all, and really no impact except an increase in the risky behaviours involved in dealing with straight spirits. Bottle sculling, anyone?

Anyway, I vivdly recall teenage parties where people mixed up sweet, milk-based cocktails (e.g. Kahlua, Baileys, Tia Maria) with consummate ease. I also recall people pooling their pennies to buy bottles of liquer or spirits. I don’t suppose that these strategies are unavailable to today’s youngsters. If you have a “buyer” for contraband alcohol, surely these methods are no more difficult than procuring alcopops.

On this:

But research certainly shows that price (along with placement, packaging, promotion, education, and restrictions on availability to kids through stronger enforcement) DOES have an effect on consumption patterns.

Well, that’s the point, isn’t it. So far we have a price increase. I heard an representative of independent retailers on Lateline business the other night claiming that it hasn’t changed volumes of alcohol sales at all, just the mix of those sales. If they’re shills too, well so be it, but I haven’t heard any evidence to the contrary.

But thanks for the link to the paper – I’ll read it with interest, and I’m willing to be convinced. And of course, I don’t think the tax equalisation is a bad idea.

Okay, hold up a bit. I understand you have experienced one anecdotal “appearance” of this “explosion”, but I can tell you that when I was 14 (1988) kids had parties and got slaughtered just fine without RTDs. What we did was drink other things. Personally I had an adult palate way back, but there was always Vodka and Passiona for the girls and girly-men. Or fruity lexia in a box.

Does anyone have actual EVIDENCE (like, data) that young teen or pre-teen drinking has increased? Extra points if some effort is made to eliminate the effects of increased media attention or improved honesty in reportage.

a stark reality I experienced the hard way a few years ago when my daughter had her 15th birthday party and several hundred mostly drunken children turned up

And most often it’s the parents that are buying the bloody drinks for the kids.

Contrast that with American parents who aren’t as accepting or tolerant.

Aussie parents have a very lax attitude to underage drinking.

Most of the commenters on this thread seem to be thinking about the problem from the perspective of their own current alcohol tastes and experiences. My main concern is about seriously udner-age drinkers (aged 12-15) because that’s where the most troubling explosion of binge drinking is apparently occurring (a stark reality I experienced the hard way a few years ago when my daughter had her 15th birthday party and several hundred mostly drunken children turned up because someone advertised it on the Internet).

The research indicates that the palates of these kiddie drinkers are so undeveloped that they can’t stand the taste of alcohol, but love sweet and milky drinks, and therefore are only susceptible to foul sweet concoctions like Bacardi Breezers or Chocolate Vodka Mudshakes (based on white spirits whose alcoholic taste is easily masked by sweet and milky mixers). Thus they’re not going to be remotely tempted even by scotch and cola let alone a bottle of Laphroaig. Moreover, and again because they’re only kids, they would be unlikely to be able to afford to buy a bottle of scotch or vodka or whatever for $30-40. They are certainly price-sensitive buyers and at the very least increasing the price through taxation is likely to reduce the number of cans they can afford to buy.

I’m not suggesting in any sense that increasing the excise is a complete answer, or even any more than a small part of the answer. But research certainly shows that price (along with placement, packaging, promotion, education, and restrictions on availability to kids through stronger enforcement) DOES have an effect on consumption patterns. If Rudd fails to take effective action on these other fronts as well then he should certainly be condemned, but criticism of the tax increase per se is IMO either misconceived or given in bad faith (and I strongly suspect that Berg belongs in the second group).

“Hey baby, I’ll mix you a special one of mine…”

Although to be honest, I’ve always had an utterly baseless suspicion that the majority of drink-spiking allegations are the post facto rationalisations of people who get too drunk and do something they regret.

“How on Earth did I wake up next to this vile pig of a man? He MUST have spiked my drink!”

“No mum and dad [hurl], I swear I just had two shandies [cough, splutter]”

NOTE: I am not attempting to cast aspersions on those who’ve actually been victim to this disgusting and criminal behaviour.

Jason, you may not be a libertarian, but youve just made one of the core libertarian arguments against sin taxes: initially, they raise a bit of revenue, but once everyone learns to cheat… the whole exercise becomes fairly pointless fairly quickly.

LOL – it’s a fair cop, guv, except that I don’t object to a tax on alcohol per se. I do think that alcohol manufacturers’ products do extract a social cost(they are selling potentially dangerous and addictive drugs) so that levying those products to recover some of that is fair enough. (I don’t doubt that we disagree on this point.) If the government wants to equalise those taxes or make the system simpler, fine, but they should just say so.

I do think that people are kidding themselves (or others) if they are arguing that this will put a dent in binge-drinking or stop people starting to drink if they’re so inclined. Cheap alcohol is still available, and some of it just got cheaper, relatively speaking.

Like FDB, I can’t understand why anyone would buy a carton of “Scotch and Cola” in preference to a bottle of Laphroaig. But I do have some sympathy with the argument that as far as inexperienced drinkers go, RTDs might actually minimise some harm by keeping the mix to 5% or 6% alc/vol. I’m pretty sure a lot of people wouldn’t be so scrupulous when mixing their own (I’m not :) )

So, while I think the RTD tax is retarded, at least it may help to put paid to a lot of false consciousness about the “quality” of the product.